Seriously? I'm happy with all of the casting, in a "Huh, I'd never thought of him/her" kind of way...all of it except that. I've never seen the guy in anything, so I can't be completely disappointed...but in pictures he doesn't look like he's got anywhere near the hardness necessary for the Comedian. And he looks WAY too young.

I'm glad there's no Cruise or Reeves or Law. Let the story and characters be bigger than the actors, that's how this project should be. I've been scared of this movie for years, but I have to say Snyder has really been winning me over with every new bit I find out about the movie and his take on the material. I hope not to be disappointed.

But nobody else will. Maybe that's a good thing -- I can see the comparisons to "the Incredibles" coming already: "washed up heroes come out of retirement for one last throwdown, only Pixar's characters didn't look so ridiculous." Night Owl, anyone? *koff*

They'r like... in their 30s!
I wld have imagined someone as... perhaps Burt Reynolds as the Comedian, and William H. Macy wold have made a great Night Owl.
Perhaps the only one I agree with is Jackie Earle Haley.... but with his face covered the whole time, I don't think that really matters... except for sopiling the final revelation of his identity.
I don't know, perhaps they're going the "new faces" approach... or perhaps it's just a cheap version... Let's wait.

I'll take your word for it. And I feel, for some reason, inclined to trust the people doing the casting enough that I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. I'm VERY happy that they didn't go with any big names. However, I do think that it may have been a good idea to cast a big name for Veidt/Ozymandias. I think Tom Cruise would have been fairly perfect for the role (as long as they made him look taller than he is) a few years back before he became a joke. Ozymandias doesn't work if half the audience is laughing through his final monologue.

I was going to say something about the Shadow, but no. I can't believe I'm actually saying this, but they do look kinda young, I thought the majority of the characters where 35-45 years old, well, for the majority of the story. I thought Night Owl was supposed to be a little past his prime, but Dr. Manhattan could be played by someone in their 20's.<br><br>Who knows, I just hope this kicks ass, because this is going to be the first REAL R-rated superhero movie, and I'm not counting Dolph's Punisher, which I actually own, bought it for $3 at a dump bin in Wal-Mart, the endless tunnels and the beard that is just charcoal smeared on... good stuff.

Have any of you writing on this talkback actually read the comic? Because every single one of these characters has flashbacks dating decades earlier. Sure, the Comedian is in his 50s in the present day, but he's also 19 in the one flashback that is guaranteed to make its way into the movie. And it's a hell of a lot easier to age an actor than to make him look younger.
And is it me, or did the moron who wrote the Hollywood Reporter article actually manage to spoil the mystery this early on?

and Snyder did bloody good. These are some really inspired choices!
Matthew Goode IS too young, but we'll see...It should be noted that Malin Ackerman actually looks a bit like a Dave Gibbons drawing.
This flick has the potential to do
for the Graphic Novel what LOTR did for Fantasy Lit & what STAR WARS did for the Sci-Fi Space Opera. Let's just hope that Crudup looks good in blue...

That can really work here. Hell most of the non geek world have no idea what Watchmen is or how it deserves to be mentioned as one of the great all time novels along side Huckleberry Finn, Great Gatsby, To Kill a MockingBird etc...
So give Snyder a break he knocked 300 out of the Park he will do the same with Watchmen, and if he fucks it up we will kill him.

Is it just me or has just about every role this guy has taken ends up with his character dead? Supernatural? Dead. Weeds? Dead. Grey's Ananomy? Dead. And now Watchmen? Oh yeah.. dead.
<p>
I am digging the cast though. Screw A-Listers. Put up a decent script and good direction and this movie will be tits squared.

couldn't they afford an all-star cast? I mean it would have been nice. Matthew Goode, I don't see as Ozymandias. He's too British. I mean I liked him in Match Point but I'm just not seeing it. And I had no idea Gerard Butler and Javier Bardem even dated let alone had a baby. I don't know. I'm underwhelmed now.

Not only do almost none of the actors look like the characters (except for the guy cast as The Comedian), but I recognize almost none of their names! I know Billy Crudup, but as Dr. Manhattan??? Why not Billy Zane, are some other guys who'd fit the part better?<p>This MAY be good, but for such a complex story and weird comicbook story, not having any name actors to bring the suckers in could be a big mistake.

I actually really dig Billy Crudup for Dr. Manhattan. They're going to have to put an effect on his voice, of course...but I honestly think that the entire movie hinges on how they pull off his blueness. I always pictured him as being VERY slightly glowing...but who knows, really.

Cuz everything that say Reese Witherspoon, Kevin Spacey, Brad Pitt, Angelie Jolie ect... do is fucking awesome! Great. Never in my life have I seen a movie that wasn't the GREATEST THING EVER if it starred an A List star. I mean c'mon, their stars! You should be glad to even see them act rather than drink lattes in US Magazine. Fuck some people are losers who post talkbacks.

I'm not a comic book/graphic novel reader but I actually read this one. And I saw the potential for a great movie. I'm not saying it won't still be. Of course we have to wait and see. But if it were me I would have gone all-star. It just makes sense. I mean with great material you can get the exact right actors, so why not do that? I hate to bring up Batman but Nolan could pick anyone he wanted and he has picked some fantastic actors who all happen to be "name" actors. I just think everyone who has the opportunity to do that should.</p>
And the example of LOTR having no names in it? You really hadn't heard of those people before? I was a fan of most of the fellowship long before those movies came out.

I'm not trying to stir anything up with you ,but your opening comment made me think of this. Why does the media at large always without fail refer to comicbooks as graphic novels? Most graphic novels start as single comics ,it drives me insane as that ass who created Heroes making the statement he never read comics ,must be some of that like thinking.

I can't take full credit for this explanation as another talkbacker brought this up before but the reason they have younger actors is probably because the story is so flashback heavy. You have to consider it's easier to make them look older than it is to make them younger.
<p>

The only one among these I'm not seeing as his(her)character is Goode. In Dean Morgan's case, his likeness to the countenance of the late Comedian hits you already. Goode had better be able to grow some visible muscle though, to look the specimen that Adrian Veidt is and must be for the physical dynamics of Ozymandias to come across believably against the other Watchmen.

I've heard that too, and consider it a valid reason to hire young. I didn't think Goode would be a fit for Adrian, but seeing that pic makes me easier with the choice.
Overall, I like this cast. I look forward to this movie more now.

show me one example where HBO has created some epic, magically faithful rendition of a supernatural-type story. (And please dont try to counter this point with either Band of Brothers or Angels in America because that would just be sad.) Not every fantasy story needs to be a fanboy wet dream line for line retelling of the "sacred texts". Watchmen isn't going to be a 10 hour HBO miniseries. Good Omens wont be an HBO miniseries. The Dark Tower wont be an HBO miniseries. Let it go already. You want your beloved property to be some HBO epic? Go make it happen yourself. And not with an internet petition. Write some scripts, make some movies, earn some credibility, pitch it to HBO, and then tell the world the story as only you can so exquisitely capture it. I'll check back in 30 years to see how you are doing.

They couldn't pay enough for 'no-hit-wonder' Jude Law to sign on? This guy has had more chances than any would-be leading man in motion picture history, and has failed to carry a single movie on his shoulders. I was one who was behind casting him, but now I say "good riddance". Law was such a fan of the story that he got a Rorscach tattoo to prove it, but not fan enough to take a pound less to be a part of it. How perfectly Hollywood for such an englishman as he.

I don't want a Tom Cruise or Tom Hanks in this. I want unknowns - in fact, Rorschach has to be played by someone the audience isn't familiar with because he is in the background a lot. I'm pretty confident that Zack Snyder has the right hook on this - he even says he's getting the raft of the dead bodies into the film.

Whenever a comic property is announced, everyone screeches they want "unknowns" and not big Box Office-drawing "names."<p>Then, we get just that, and people bellyache about "Who???" and "No names."<p>I'm excited we get some *characters* and not some fucking big-dollar dickheads.

I'm going to commit fanbot heresy by saying The Watchmen didn't do great things for me. The earth didn't move. I definitely don't see 'BEST COMIC EVAR' anywhere in those pages. It's a well scripted socio-political commentary that tinkers with the concept of superheroes in a clever way. Meh. But this cast, man, that looks good. One thing all those folks have in common: they can fucking ACT. The only thing that could have been better would have been the delicious irony of Ellen Page cast as Juspeczyk.

two points - one, it was original material, not an adaptation, so it doesn't really prove that HBO is the magic adaptation factory. Two, HBO's treatment of that show goes to prove that they wouldn't necessarily let some grand story play out the way it was meant to. I was a huge fan of that show, and the way HBO dropped it should make people suspect of wanting their favorite materials adapted there, rather than begging for it to happen.

I'm pretty sure Jude Law would have done this film for peanuts. Doesn't he have a Watchmen tattoo or something? And I love how people are suddenly all aboard the "no stars" bandwagon. I've been following this project as long as anyone else, been reading Watchmen since the 80's. But the person who brought up Christopher Nolan is correct. It's not that a film needs stars to be great, it's that the studio should have given this the prestige treatment it deserves, where the director was free to cast the BEST actors for the roles, regardless of price or stature. There's a REASON many of these actors are stars. Some have coasted on good looks, many arrived because of talent and that certain "something" that you can't put your finger on. There's not one iconic actor in the bunch, and that saddens me considering many of these characters are archetypes to a certain extent. Also, Lord of the Rings cast nobodies because the material was well-known enough. No one in the general public knows or cares what Watchmen is. A few big names would have drawn them in. This looks like it's being treated with the same respect as Fantastic Four, which is not much at all. V for Vendetta had better casting, for crissakes, and was only a modest success. I have a lot of faith in the director, but this casting news does NOT read "fresh and exciting". It reads CHEAP CHEAP CHEAP. Pretending anything else is some kind of sad wishful thinking.

You don't need iconic actors when the material is iconic. And your emphasis on bank over quality proves you belong at the next Transformers showing. On top of that you contradict your own flawed logic. If V had better casting then why didnt it do better at the box? Fuck, now that I think of it, you would fit right in as a studio head. FOX comes to mind first.

that it leaves an empty feeling inside to not be able to do it any more. Like the end of an era.</p>
And although no one in my dream cast made it, this cast seems okay. Not sure about the dude playing Ozymandias though.

League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was NOTHING like the comic book, and 300 proves Zack Snyder knows how to be faithful to the material. Also look at what they achieved with the small budget of 300? Because of that huge success Watchmen's budget should be much more. Someone else mentioned that V had star casting but besides Portman, the star of the film was a expressionless face, that's the exact opposite of star casting if you ask me.

Will Dearborn, you said "And is it me, or did the moron who wrote the Hollywood Reporter article actually manage to spoil the mystery this early on?" Well, here's the thing: there really ISN'T any mystery any more.<p>Let's face it, that's going to be one of the hardest things about marketing this film. It would have been one thing if DC/Warner made a movie right after the book first came out. But WATCHMEN is 21 YEARS OLD at this point and that's a problem.<p>So, on the one hand, the studio is certainly banking on comic book and genre geeks to be the backbone of the box office, but there's no question that THEY already know the so-called "twist ending." On the other hand, if you're the general public and just a casual movie fan, you're still going to see in the entertainment news sidebar stories about this being made...that it's an adaptation of one of the most famous graphic novels ever...blah, blah, blah...at which point all you have to do is spend under 30 seconds online to find out what WATCHMEN is actually all about. And once anyone DOES go looking -- since it has been 21 years now -- pretty much 99.9999% of any web site they'll come across will reveal the ending, figuring after two decades its not anything they have to hide anymore.<p>Hell, look at it this way: the ending for the new POTTER book was online almost instantly and that's something "new." So you think a 21 year old book is going to have much of a chance of keeping its twist ending a secret? For some, maybe...but I'm already willing to bet that as this goes forward in production that more and more reporters will inadvertantly reveal the ending, only to later be saying "What, after 21 years that was supposed to be a surprise?"

As perfect as he would seem for Veidt, I'm glad he is not playing the part. He would be like a tentpole amongst all the other Very unknown cast members. A distraction, A-Lister baggage. He's great, but I'm fine without him in the movie and I think the current cast looks promising. Except for, ironically enough, the Goode-Doode. He needs to bulk up for physical perfection. So does Crudup. Let's pray for this one, folks.

"But you don't understand."
"That's Walter Kovaks." "You guys talking about Walter Kovaks?" "Yeah." "That dude is a bad mother." "You're talking about a loan shark. I borrowed a nickel from him. Said if I didn't give him a dime by Friday, he'd cut my dog's head in two with an axe!" "Don't know what he's talking about, but I like him. He's got balls." "Why screw around? If the guy can fight crime, he can fight crime. Let's get him on the team."

Why is HBO always held as a savior of geekdom? Could HBO have made a wonderful adaptation of Watchmen as s TV series (or long miniseries)? Of course they could have. But you know what? They'd have cancelled it by the end of the first season and all of your head's would explode in anger. Same goes for The Dark Tower. TDT would make a wonderful series on HBO, but there is no fucking way that they would allow it to last more than two seasons. They'd deem it too expensive and shitcan it before it even got halfway through the books. Just look what they've done with most of their other series and tell me I'm wrong. Most of them haven't been allowed to see their arcs through to the end, with the exception of The Sopranos. Preacher is being set up at HBO, I believe. They're apparently going to try and do all of the printed stories and some extra ones in five seasons. I'll bet you it doesn't make it past the second season, if it even gets that far. Fuck HBO. Quit giving them so much credit and come to your senses.

Mark my words, BDA, they're going to market this one way and one way only: FROM THE DIRECTOR OF 300 - BASED ON ONE OF THE MOST CELEBRATED GRAPHIC NOVELS OF ALL TIME (or, if they get cold feet - FROM THE IMAGINATION/VISION OF ALAN MOORE, getting the name out but hiding the fact that it's a graphic novel, which to me is more likely). They will do their absolute darndest to hide Dr. Manhattan in the trailers. They will focus mostly on non-costume scenes in the ads, showing the mystery elements, though there may be a lot of Rorschach. They will show a lot of cityscapes and "visionary" stuff, a few clocks, and most likely end the ad with THE COUNTDOWN HAS BEGUN ... JULY 23 or whatever.

It doesn't mean jack shit. Want examples of big films that started out with "no name" or "lesser known" actors? Ok, here you go: Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Conan the Barbarian, E.T., Die Hard, X-Men, Spider-Man, Pitch Black, Jurassic Park, Harry Potter, 300, Dawn of the Dead, Saw, Dr. No, Rocky, A Fistful of Dollars, Lethal Weapon, Alien, etc. Now when they were released, a few of those had some slightly recognizeable actors and some whose fame had faded, but none of them were big time "A-listers" at the time of release. But you know, I guess all of those bombed at the BO because there weren't any superstars in them. Whatever. By the way, if the cast were filled with nothing but "name" actors, you same people would be pitching a fit about how it should have been cast with no names.

The standard HBO season is 13 episodes. For Watchmen, they could make an exception and only do 12. So while you're right, it would never make it past the first season, well, that's because one season is all that's required. When Terry Gilliam gave up on the project, he said that he felt that a 12-hour miniseries would be the only way to do it justice. And speaking as someone who read one of the multitude of David Hayter drafts, I can tell you that Gilliam couldn't have been more right. The script crammed in nearly every scene from the comic, never giving a degree of gravitas to any of them. While I suspect that the Hayter-Tse draft is probably better, we're all going to have plenty to bitch about in terms of what's missing.
As for your feelings on Preacher, well, yeah, it's going to get cancelled after two seasons. Because Ennis wrote 19 solid issues before the story went into the shitter. Unless somebody who can write -- and no, I don't think Mark Steven Johnson qualifies -- comes in to seriously develop that story, this project is doomed from moment one. Ditto Dark Tower; four solid books (the fourth of which is a bona fide masterpiece), followed by quite possibly the worst idea in the history of fantasy literature. The only way a show based on this series would work is if it dealt solely with Roland's early years, as the comic does. Watchmen is storytelling perfection. These others require so much work that adapting them for the screen would be a pointless endeavor.

...Nick Stahl from "Carnivale." His brutal turn in "Bully" makes him perfect. Dad Winchester as the 50 something Comedian is brilliant, looks dead like him. Matthew Goode better hit the gym, all Crudup has to do is voice the CGI Doc Manhattan.

I think this adaptation could be interesting, though. It's a very long time since I read Watchmen, but I remember it being one of the better comic stories.<p>Also, I like this director Zack Snyder so far. He's a shallow bastard, but he's very good at that superficial action thing he does. Nothing specifically wrong with that. At least the guy knows how to stage a coherent action scene. If he can add some depth to what he does, he could be something special in the action genre, which it really needs right now. Fuck Michael Bay and his offspring.

that article says that Snyder is gonna shoot this movie using similar techniques in "300".
i dunno about that one... i just feel like Watchmen needs to be shot in real settings and locations. not in some cheesy CG backgrounds.

Let's see, "Dawn of the Dead" had one recognizable name Ving Rhames- critical and box office hit; "300" starred Gerard Butler, who some people know as Joel Schumacher's Vegas version of "Phantom," and "300" has grossed over 450 million worldwide...uh, I think Zack knows what he's doing.

...nobody. Shame they couldn't get a couple more "name" actors, Watchmen doesn't have the name recognition factor amongst regular cinemagoers that franchises like Spidey have. Obviously Snyder is getting squeezed like a motherfucker on the budget for this thing. I would rather NO Watchmen movie than a shitty Watchmen movie - it's the Catcher In The Rye of comics. Mind you, I'm still sad we're not getting the Paul Greengrass version. That dude can fucking direct.

yet Bay can make Transformers with 150 Million then I am slightly losing faith. Apart from Haley and Wilson the cast is not that great and if it's a thing about money then again I urge Snyder to see Transformers which is far bigger than Watchmen and only 3 people in this cast would command large paychecks.

if you notice, celebrities don't bring in the bucks anymore, people go to see movies now instead of a walking tabloid magazine. Read a tabloid magazine and tell me anyone in there brings in the big bucks at the box office, not even Pitt or Jolie can bring in people anymore, people care about movies now. What bugs me is that I don't like matthew goode as ozy, that's pretty much it. I would have preffered a big actor just for that role.

big names fon't bring in the money anymore you dumb fuck, look around you, look at the biggest movies this year, look at the movies with celebrities. Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, Nicole Richie, Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Jude Law. No one goes to see their movies. The only one I would want is Brad Pitt and even then people didn't go to see Babel cos Pitt was in it. Are you a housewife who loves Oprah or something?

i may be giving the greenlighters the benefit of the doubt by saying this, but maybe the actors are this young because they are going to do a prequel. It may be a stretch but i have my fingers crossed that they won't ruin more of Moore's work...then again, this is Hollywood.

I don't trust Zack Snyder with this AT ALL. They should've waited for a better director. Like FUCKING GREENGRASS. God dammit. Do you have any idea how many fucking times we're going to have to say "Watchmen was ACTUALLY a really good comic book, I'm serious." 300 was dog crap.

Before any wiseass brings me up on a typo.
On the flip, I have no idea who this guy playing Comedian is...In hindsight I wish Butler was playing him instead even though my initial thought was to go against him.

you idiot. Stars don't bring in names. Haley and Wilson are inspired choices and show that they were chosen because they can ACT. The only one i have a problem with is Goode. That is one that I would have preffered to be a mega star, Brad Pitt would have been perfect and it would have been metatext in motion, one of the biggest names in the world playing the biggest name in the film.

he can act, has the looks but I also like the metatextual aspect. This incredibly huge name, one of the most recognizable faces in the world playing the megalomaniac Ozy who is the most famous person in the Watchmen world. That's the one casting choice I wanted. The rest are pretty good, especially Haley as Rorschach and Wilson as Nite Owl, that's inspired. Inspired like Bale as Bruce Wayne.

To the guy who mentioned the flashbacks etc where the characters are seen as their younger incarnations. How the fuck do you plan to de-age Burt Reynolds or whichever other old fuck you want to play the Comedian?? Unless you mean casting for the younger Comedian too and I think that'd be a big mistake...

We know huge star casts don't make a good film. Please, everyone on this TB could name one film to support that. I've seen at least one film for half this cast that has blown me away and so now I know Snyder has a load of cash to make this film look prestige; to wrap these characters in the proper surroundings, with perfectly integrated CGI and green screen- let's face it, the film will need these things, and with the money Snyder has saved, he can make it look superb.

LOTR had Ian McKellen, Star Wars had Alec Guinness. A Bruce Willis or Mickey Rourke as the Comedian would have been cool. Watchmen has little name-recognition amongst the non-geek crowd and a premise that isn't easily summed up, so it would have helped to have a couple of names. What about the older generation? I always thought Paul Newman as the original Nite Owl would be cool.

Because the general public flocked to see Ian McKellen????
I'm sick of these TBs. I don't think even a half of the people on here believe this film needs stars, you're just doing it to be mugs and try and ruin any buzz this film is trying to generate over the ComiCon weekend.

You said, "Yeah, the reason The Lord of the Rings, one of the greatest works of fantasy ever written, bombed at the box office is because the ending was public knowledge for 50 years. Good point." To which I say: what the hell are you going on about, let alone being so sarcastic over?<p>Look, I was merely responding to an earlier post, where someone brought up the interesting observation that in The Hollywood Reporter's announcement article, in describing each of the actors cast in relation to who they'll be playing and their plot motivations in the film, they did sort of accidentally reveal "what" the big secret is in the story -- or at least "who" is secretly behind things. He then made a comment that the reporter had now "blown it" for people, to which I was simply responding that after 21 years (1) most geeks, clearly the backbone for the box office, already know the story and the ending, so to a large degree they won't really care what the trades say...and (2) since it has been 21 years and in that time WATCHMEN has only grown in stature and fame, it wouldn't take the casual movie fan more than 30 seconds to find out online how it all ends either.<p>But you need to work on your reading comprehension skills, Canada. In my post I NEVER said anything about the film's box office or gave any predictions, nor did I ever say that BECAUSE the ending was already out there that it would bomb. Go read my post again and check for yourself.<p>So you're reply is ridiculous to begin with since its obvious that ANY adaptation of a pre-existing work is going to have its ending already known by some people out there. Which is exactly WHY I also said that it's a different ball game to make the movie now, 21 years later, versus if DC/Warner had made it when the book first came out, and not too many people (in terms of the general public) had been exposed to it.<p>In short, I was simply noting that in trying to protect the mystery elements in WATCHMEN's storyline and its ending for "new people", the studio is clearly going to have an interesting marketing problem. Basically, they're going to have to juggle the "newbies" and NOT give away too much to them versus dealing with old time fans, who already know WATCHMEN from start to finish, and who are going to be looking for a different type of media campaign or have their own expectations. That's all I was saying...so where you're pulling your sarcastic LOTR response from, I have no idea.<P>All in all, I sort of agree with Spykid above. If I had to take a guess, I could also see them doing the usual "From the Director of 300" type of trumpeting, and then handling it is as a murder mystery where a sort of Doomsday countdown has begun. Spykid's right -- given the classic imagery from the comic itself, a bloody ticking watch/countdown motif is clearly going to be a prime marketing image throughout. I mean, come on, we can take that one to the bank already!

I'm just shocked at the stupidity of people who keep posting things like, 'Awwww these actors are too young' right beneath someone posting the explanation that the flashback heavy nature of the book requires younger actors. Of course, I'm assuming they're stupid, they could just be the retarded flamers this TB is renowned for.

Snyder's just made a film with zero stars in it (300) and that did pretty well. The most recognisable face in that one (for me, at least) was McNulty out of The Wire. Maybe Snyder knows what he's doing with this Watchmen business. Also, he's got Billy Crudup out of Almost Famous this time. He's good. The only other guy I know from the above list is Patrick Wilson, and he's a good actor, too. I'll take a solid cast of talented actors over stars any day.

I just read the first review of The Simpsons on Empire's site. Not good, which is a shame. Mind you, it's by Ian Nathan, who is their worst reviewer by a pretty long stretch.<p>Come on, Ain't It Cool News. Where the hell are your Simpsons reviews?

Okay, obviously this is only my opinion, but here's the way I see it. In WATCHMEN's case, you really can't mix and match. Given the way its structured as such an all-out group dynamic story, I think you could only go to the two extremes. You either take a turn to the right and go all-out by casting so-called A-list stars (start the fanfare music: Pitt as Ozy! Hanks as Nite Owl! Willis as The Comedian!)...<p>...OR you take a turn to the left and go in the completely opposite direction, casting ONLY "lesser known" stars, basically banking on the idea that since they're not so recognizable, that will allow the viewers to concentrate on the story even more.<p>Which is why I couldn't see casting most of these people, but then having Brad Pitt suddenly showing up as Ozy. Someone above noted that it would make perfect sense to have someone like that, someone that famous in real life, playing someone that famous in the WATCHMEN world. That it would be a perfect match.<p>But that brings up what I call "The Donner Rule." Back when he was casting SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE, Warner Bros insisted that Superman HAD to be played by an A-level star, at which point they were actually considering people like Robert Redford or Sylvester Stallone. But Donner finally stood up to the studio and stuck to his far better vision and take on the character by arguing, "That's completely insane. Because every time the audience sees Superman on screen, instead of being wowed or being sucked into the moment, they're instantly going to be pulled OUT of the film instead, and they'll suddenly be sitting there thinking "Oh look! It's Robert Redford dressed up as Superman! How cute!"<p>So, to me, that would be the problem with Snyder even casting one major star -- like Pitt as Ozy -- in this thing now. Because I just think that then I'd be sitting there munching on my popcorn...I'd be watching all these people that I'm not all THAT familiar with...I'd allow myself to get lost in the WATCHMEN world...at which point Ozy would stroll on screen and the mood would be shattered, at which point I'd be thinking "Hey look! It's Brad Pitt all dressed in gold! What's he doing here?" So like I said, I think you either go all out one way or the other.<p>All in all, I agree with DannyOcean -- I think Synder has the right idea here to go the lesser name route (but still get solid actors), save on the money, and now he can really go to town with the green screen and SFX work to bring the world to life, which frankly is going to require a helluva lot of work (and bucks) so that WATCHMEN ultimately lives up to the expectations that everyone has for how we want it to "look"...

Thanks for that. You start with Rorschach who you knew couldn't be a big star because of the nature of how he's revealed. Have anyone recognisable in that early crowd scene and that later realisation is ruined.
Similarly, you're dead on about Pitt or someone big playing Veidt. It would just be Big Name Star in Gold, not Ozymandias. And yes, I know people will say, why not, they're actors, it's part of their job to disappear into the role. But in this case, I don't think it's possible.

I guess this cast was just a red herring to throw people off the trail....the REAL Cast has just been announced:
Tom Cruise - Veidt/Ozymandias!
Ed Harris - Dr Manhatten!
Kate Winslet - Silk Spectre!
Robin Williams - Rorschach!
The Rock - The Comedian!
Tom Hanks - Nite Owl!
A-listers through and through...Looks like Cruise was involved the whole time yay! Now this movie will make money! Everyone happy now?
Ya Bastids...

I personally think Paul Greengrass is a talented director, but again, for the folks here pining away for what would have been his version of Watchmen, Greengrass was all set to contemporize the story into a modern day setting, complete with modern day politics. So it wouldn't have been a Cold War story, but something about the war on terror, or how Bush is the greatest evil in the history of mankind. Additionally, the production artist types were busy doing things like redesigning Nite-Owl's costume so he could look "less-goofy" and "cooler" ala Batman - completely missing the point of his character, I'd say. Say what you will about Zack Snyder, but he's much more reverent of this material than Greengrass was lining up to be. That's not to say Paul Greengrass couldn't have still made a good movie by putting his personal ideas and creative stamp all over Watchmen... but at the end of the day, I think the fans would have been pissed off by a lot of it. Speaking as one myself, I want to see a film version of Watchmen that services Moore's story and Gibbons' art as much as possible, not one where some auteur needs to get his or her creative rocks off. I'll take the guy with his copy of the graphic novel open, saying, "I'm shooting this" any ol' day. If Snyder follows what Moore and Gibbons laid down for him as a near-bible, only paring what he needs to in order to meet a reasonable running time and a coherent narrative, he'll be fine. It's all there on the page already.

He was excellent in Little Children, but i always remeber him as a child actor in the likes of Damnation Alley. Not so sure about the casting of the comedian, does'nt look as old and craggy as Gibbons look. Make-up and costume will be critical on this, tricky one to get right wihtou seeming too camp.

Never seen him before, just watched a few clips and I think he will do fine. I like this cast, all of them has a phisique that reminds me very strongly of the characters as draw by Gibbons (except maybe Haley, but I think he is a good choice). Goode, if bulks out a little and with some touches to make him a little older, can nail Veidt, the same for Wilson, who I thinks is a extremely good actor. It would have been worse if all this characters were going to be played by stars, we need actors with a clean slate in our minds. People like Cruise, Winslet or whoever, have a very strong persona, and that would affect negatively to the movie. I think the cast will do fine.... no so sure about Snyder, though. :)

Especially that Matt Goode, who is a good actor and might even be a good choice for this role .....in twenty years. It was a major point that these superheroes were middle aged, but I guess in Hollywood that means 28.

these would work better as an HBO series, and people that insist in casting Billy "Im bald and that qualifies me for playing Luthor o Doc Manhattan" Zane as Osterman should be banned permanently of forums everywhere... enough is enough, for gods sake!!

. . . because I just lowered my hopes BIG TIME. If it sucks I am oh so prepared. I didn't feel the need for big name actors, but everyone but Haley is way way WAY too friggin' young for their parts. What the hell were they thinking, that it was a band of teen heroes getting back together in their thirties?

Well, apart from Watchmen's sixty-two die hard comic book fans. That's just the nature of the film business. The vast majority of their money comes from teens who think anyone over thirty-five is past it. They want young and pretty and hot and nubile, and their needs have to be sated if an expensive film like this is going to make any of its money back.<p>Just be thankful it doesn't have Josh Hartnett and Hilary Duff in it.

stole the sentiment right out of my mouth. Jackie Earle Haley seems the right age, and the right crazy, but I'd prefer that they got a freckled redhead. This casting could be worse, but could have been a lot better. If the director didn't seem so intent to sticking to the comic, I'd be REALLY worried right now.

They're your average Hero family. From the town of New York. They're about to blow it to smitherines. Who the fuck are those no name actors? I guess the studios don't care. Watchmen. Meet the Watchmen. Have a hurm ,a hurm, a hurm time. A hurm, a hurm time. You'll have a gay old time! Staring at Dr.Manhattan's ass!

The HR article did in fact mess up by givin away the secret. Despite the fact that it is and will continue to be easy to come across by most casual moviegoers, there was no reason to outright say it. Watchmen is great because only as you read it do you realize that among this conspriacy mystery, there is a lot about how Manhattan's appearance changed the world stage. It's interesting because as you read the ending, you see that Veidt is the only one doing anything about it, and that it all ties right back into the original conspiracy. This would be great to learn as the movie goes along too. But instead they gave away these three pieces all at once. Frankly, I would LOVE for them to market this as pretty much a conspiracy mystery. When marketing V For Vendetta, the press seemed very careful to not give away the twist in the middle. And the film is better for it. Many of my friends were very shocked when they saw who was torturing Evie. Watchmen could do the same thing.

Worry about the script, and how much nuance and period detail; references to VietNam, updating away from Nixon, dumping little subploys and visual references; turning the whole thing into a bunch of crap chase movie about Rorschach running away from the cops blowing things up a la V for Vendetta.
Snappier. That's the word that I'm afraid of; a movie about the end of everything and the fundamental moral emptiness of the cosmos that is....SNAPPY.

Not about the gratitude for being spared Josh Hartnett, I'm with you all the way on that.<br><br>But this story is not a big budget action adventure. Even though it's about superheroes it has almost no action and only one big scene of destruction at the end, followed by the least Hollywood ending in history. And lotsa young folk have lined up to see 40+ looking actors in action movies such as Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwatzenheggar, Pierce Brosnan, Daniel Craig, George Clooney, Nicholas Cage etc. All those guys have made movies where they looked and seemed over 40 and young people loved them. Indiana Jones 4 will probably even make lotsa cash against all better reasoning.<br><br>If this film has any hope of profit it would be to go for the credibility of telling an unconventional story well and getting good word of mouth and critics backing it.

...because now we won't be distracted by some big shots on the screen! This is all about the story and great characterization. By putting in actors that aren't huge blockbuster names, we can enjoy their characterizations and focus on this incredible story. Thank you, Zach Snyder!

I'm not complaining about the casting, I trust Snyder's judgment after 300, and giving Butler his break. But I was just wondering if Rorschach was supposed to be slightly younger than the others, except maybe Silk Spectre since for me thats how he struck me visually, that he kinda had a babyface to fit his screwed up personality.

Especially Morgan as the Comedian. Anyone who has watched Supernatural knows that the man can do badass like nobody's business.
I actually have high hopes for this one suddenly. I think casting character actors will seriously work in his favor. Besides which, by the time this comes out, Morgan will be coming off roles in at least two major movies (PS, I Love You, with Hillary Swank, and Accidental Husband, with Uma Thurman). They might both be crapfest romantic comedies, but between that and Grey's Anatomy, he could pull insome good mainstream press.

Especially Morgan as the Comedian. Anyone who has watched Supernatural knows that the man can do badass like nobody's business.
I actually have high hopes for this one suddenly. I think casting character actors will seriously work in his favor. Besides which, by the time this comes out, Morgan will be coming off roles in at least two major movies (PS, I Love You, with Hillary Swank, and Accidental Husband, with Uma Thurman). They might both be crapfest romantic comedies, but between that and Grey's Anatomy, he could pull insome good mainstream press.

The examples of forty plus actors you gave were solo action hero types. Watchmen is, if I remember rightly, more of an ensemble piece, and I just figure that a studio is not going to want to plough a decent chunk of its money into a film filled with forty-somethings. A couple, maybe, but they'll want plenty of younger actors to attract a younger crowd. They're the ones with the money. It may not be an action/adventure type of thing, but chances are it's going to cost at least $70million or so (not a small amount of money), which the studio is going to want a return on.<p>In principle, I agree with your idea of an unconventional story and critical word of mouth, but given the studio (Warner Brothers) and the director they've hired (very slick, not much up top), spectacular entertainment is going to be high on the agenda.<p>I still think this could be a good one, but I also think fans are going to have swallow a few changes here and there.

I listed both because I know that they are two different things. I never read either growing up. But I'm guessing that most people who read graphic novels got to them because they were comic books readers first. I could be wrong. It seems like the same fanbase, that's probably why it's the same thing to most people who don't know anything about it.

The failure to recognise the abillities of Crudup, Haley or Wilson as name actors speaks to the posters ignorance, nothing more. Thats three BIG names, in regards to actual performers. Thats good news, not bad. If you retards need celebrities to make a film worthwhile, your not really all that interested in getting a good film. Plus, honestly, if you don't know these names, and aren't already excitied by their casting, your not a film geek, just a gossip junky. Seriously.

"Too attractive, too young"
Have you all gone retarded? They're headshots, of course they're going to look polished and pretty. Check out Cameron Diaz in Being John Malkovich or Jude Law in Road to Perdition, of COURSE they're going to be uglified and aged for the movie. Crispin Glover STILL doesn't look as old as he did as George McFly. Watchmen chronicles a history of the characters that parallel the history of comics from optimistic colorful olden days to the then grim and gritty present of the mid-eighties. How rediculous would Burt Reynolds look de-aged X-men 3 style as Comedian in his 20s?

Aren't these guys too young? WTF? The chick was younger and Crudup is fine as Dr. Manhattan but Wilson as the Nite Owl?, that Goode guy as Ozy and who the fuck is that playing the Comedian? I'm not liking it...Mel Gibson's crazy ass would have been PERFECT for the comedian...anyone see that pic lately of him in a Costa Rican bar? Slap some white stripes on his hair and he's the comedian....Fuckity, Fuck...20+ years and this is the cast we get...

Who knew Hugh Jackman, before the first X-Men, Vigo Mortensen before TLoTR or Chris Reeves before Superman?
The Watchmen is a complex, layered story, and yeah, it's going to have to sacrifice a fair amount of detail to fit into even a 3 hour movie.
I read the book, on a friends rec about a year ago, and even though it's 21 years old, I had never read it OR heard the ending discussed before, so I understand where some people above are coming from.
I've been watching the 'unknown' Jeffrey Dean Morgan for 10 years,(Recent movies: The Accidental Husband (with Uma Thurman), PS I Love You (with Hillary Swank), and indies JAM, Live! and Kabluey) and for those who know him as Denny Duquette from Grey's Anatomy, as Judah Botwin from Weeds, or even John Winchester from Supernatural(where he plays a guy in his 50's), he will, given a decent script to work with, freaking blow you away as The Comedian.

I never thought a known actor should play Rorshach, because he is unknown. However known actors would've worked for Veidt and The Comedian because in the book these characters are celebrities. As many on this board have mentioned The Comedian has that same quality as Mel Gibson who has a charismatic likeability and natural authority that makes it so hard to accept their dark side.<br><br>And yes, I realize that they can use cosmetics to make actors look older, and that depends on the skill of the make-up artist and the actors' ability to play older which I've seen both go wrong more times than right.<br><br>I'm not excited by this cast at all, I know Matt Goode can act and don't know the rest, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for now. I still think this could be a good film and yes Franklin, I'm willing to accept some changes and actually hope for some (such as cutting the pirate stuff). They're going to have a hard time making this accessible to kids with all the Cold War stuff. Most people my age only know about the Cold War from catching Rocky 4 on television and believe it ended with a boxing match.

This is all a pipe dream obviously but c'mon...this is a big f'ing story, one of the best of its kind, and it needed a big fucking A list cast. Screw all you star haters, the guys I'm about to mention were and are some of the best actors around in specific roles and the roles they would play in Watchmen would play EXACTLY to their strengths....Mel Gibson IS the comedian, Tom Cruise IS the Nite Owl (c'mon...a middle-aged, sullen former hero trying to make sense of his life?..Cruise would have been great here), Brad Pitt as Ozy (for all the obvious reasons and he doesn't even have to dye his fucking hair blonde...screw Jude Law, he would have been to wink, wink).....that talent combined with Haley and Crudup who admittedly are decently cast...man. Cast Cost = 80 million. Opening weekend with that cast? Twice that. You foo's can justify the above cast all you want...but these guys need fucking baggage...Wilson, Goode, whoever that guy is that is playing the comedian...they may be good actors, but you got to feel the baggage of these guys-their just too damn young. You f'ing morons who keep flapping their gums about casting around the flashbacks? Are you morons fucking serious? The central core of the story, the weight of the story is focused on the middle aged cast, their feelings of helplessness within this tragic doomsday scenario world...you cast the actors around THAT!, not the fucking idealistic flashbacks...Judging by the above rant that just kind of spewed out...I guess I'm not pleased at all with the casting except for a few notable exceptions....I do knw that Haley is gonna knock all of these young shits off the screen with just his fucking voice...

no one watches movies for the stars anymore, you think jo blo gives a shit about that whole cast, it's about movies now. look at 300 versus oceans 13(and it's a fucking franchise). look at the celebrity magazines you most obviously read, do these people open movies based on their names? Lohan, Hilton, Richie, Jolie, Witherspoon? Even Pitt? He did Babel but that was successful because it was well recieved not because Pitt was in it. Though I wish Pitt was playing Ozy.

to the next fucktard that wonders why these actors are younger than 'expected'. Seriously, search the TB or simply put your fucking brain in gear before opening yourself up to a serious verbal drubbing.

... you didn't read the article that was published a while back once this was first in the works. As soon as Cruise's name came up for the role of Ozy, Snyder was the first to dispell the rumor. He said that he had approached him, but had varying opinions of the character which made Tom Cruise pass. He said he "was likely to cast some unknown actors in pivitol roles." I personally think that was a great idea. One of the producers, I forgot which one, said that sometimes a-list movie casts become more about the star's identities and prevents you from becoming immersed in the story. I typically agree (with a few exceptions, naturally) so I think we should calm down and just see what is brought to the table. I, too, thought the actors might be a bit young, but understanding they have to play both young and old it would be nearly impossible for my original "dream cast" to play like they were 20 years old. These guys CAN pull that off.

Remember in Boogie Nights how there was twenty minutes or so at the begining where Dirk is supposed to be teenager but Mark Walhberg clearly looks mid-20s? But then the movie progresses and most of it takes place with Dirk being in his 20s and it made sense to cast an actor who looked right and felt right for the majority of the film where all the important stuff happens instead of a teenager and putting a prostetic jaw and shoulders on him. Ya know, reasonable suspension of disbelief.<br><br>Same goes for Watchmen, sure there are flashback scenes where the characters are 30 and even if the actors barely look any younger in those scenes it won't much matter because all the important stuff happens to them in their 40s.

The three characters I mentioned that should be played by stars were former heroes, celebs....they need to be recongnizable. Age is the driving force, though, as I would have been happy with character actors too....And did you actually just compare Gibson to goddamn Lohan and Hilton you dumb shit? People will always care about REAL stars when their within a specific genre and playing to their strengths, actors that continually work with the best of the best....not fucking gossip rag crack whores...you pose one example: 300 vs. Ocean's 13? Pathetic. No watches films for stars anymore? Bullshit. I fucking do. I'm awaiting the next badass role for Kurt Russell...for Micheal Keaton...for Mel Gibson (acting of course). I enjoy the screen presence of Tom Hanks, of Tom Cruise, of Denzel Washington....these guys have been at the top of their game for a reason...you don't want stars? Stay the fuck home and watch The CW network...

The major point of concern is that, with a young Ozymandias, his
plan will appear to be an exercise in youthful abandon as opposed to being the result of a man's LIFE WORK. It'll be a big fuckin' stretch.

yeah, I read that article...but I honestly see Cruise more in the Nite owl role...I'm not saying he would ever agree to that particular role thats why I said it would have been my dreamcast. The ego's of big stars would have a hard time justifying an ensemble piece like this...but for me, thats what separates 'Watchemen' from other films. This film DESERVED a big talent grouping like no other...If only one story could group together three big stars, it would be this. I disagree that stars are a distraction...that always seems to be a convenient answer for a genre piece like this that can't attract the big talent (can't being the key word there...). It's amazing how caught up I was in 'Saving Private Ryan' despite Hanks twenty million mug...Willis in 'Unbreakable'..hell, Gibson in everything...fuck, I even thought Cruise was perfect in 'War of the Worlds' and wasn't a "distraction" at all...I don't know, I think people are too blinded by their desire for this to be great to actually allow this disappointing casting to sink in for what it really is...a goddamn shame.

lovely sentiment but ya got nothing. When did lacking a famous face all of a sudden make you a fucking "actor". Haley and Crudup is good casting...the others are not..period. Patrick Wilson is okay but even taking away the obvious age detriment, what are we looking at to convince? Hard Candy? Little Children? The Alamo? Phantom of the Opera? He's too vanilla...I've never been a big fan, he's got no charisma. My issue is how there will obviously have to be changes to the script to justify this change in generation...have you guys even read 'Watchmen' recently? And why is everyone comparing fucking 300 to Watchmen? A stylistic non-narrative, one of the purest examples of style over substance I can think of...which needs to be the exact opposite of Watchmen. We all know 'Watchmen' will look good....that's not the concern..Synder's got to prove he has the substance

This movie, to me at least, seems to be shaping up nicely.
First and foremost, a director that seems to want to adapt the book to screen without fiddling with it unnecessarily. That means a lot. Also, the time is perfect for this movie. The box office is pretty saturated with superhero flicks, with more on the way...and I think people are starting to get tired of them. Here's a flick based on a series that totally turned the superhero genre on its ear. It presented these characters as real people with real problems, not icons that do nothing but spit out catchy one-liners. I think this is why the cast will work well for the flick. Most of these "heroes" were people you wouldn't even notice if you passed them on the street (given, of course, that they weren't in costume or huge, blue, and glowing). "No-names" seem to fit that better.
If Snyder can work in the themes of moral ambiguity and responsibility, and do it well, I think it'll be a great (or at least good) flick.
Now I just want to know if we're going to see Manhattan's blue wang on screen.

Casting aside, Snyder himself is an
entirely questionable director for a project this intricate, delicate, & powerful. Both of his previous movies were specific (some might say sub-Michael Bay) GENRE FILMS that held very little dramatic water. All the best bits in "300" belong to Frank Miller & everything else came off as oddly amateurish. If WATCHMEN is anything
less than an instant classic, Snyder needs to leave showbiz for good. There is no in-between here.
This is not a "RELEASE DATE" movie,
this is bloody GONE WITH THE WIND!
In this TB, it's stated that some folks weren't BLOWN AWAY by the book. They're right, but to a 14 year old reading it for the first it's CHEKHOV, it's JAMES JOYCE & it sticks with you for life.
WATCHMEN is the greatest example of GRAPHIC LITERATURE, and ZACK SNYDER has a long way to prove that he can do justice to a work that VICTOR FLEMING/KUBRICK/DAVID FINCHER could do in there sleep.
FINCHER would've actually been perfect for this & SNYDER could've
directed the more "visual & less
dramatically demanding" DARK KNIGHT RETURNS. We'll just have to wait & see...

"i fucking do" but not everyone does. I am comparing 300 to oceans eleven, one was a mega hit with no name stars and the other was what with a mega cast. Names don't maketh the movies anymore. Big names wouldn't add to this movie, it doesn't need to be recognizable. i only want Pitt because of the looks and the metatextual aspect. Guess you're a cunt who likes watching shitty movies with recognizable actors. Go and read your ok magazine you fuckspoon.

if you Rorschach and Nite Owl could have been played by bigger names then you should stab a spoon into your ovaries because you are a dumb fuck. Give me Tom Cruise, give me Tom Hanks, give me Denzel Washington. Fuck yourself.

'fuckcunt' and 'fuckspoon'...heh. Honestly, I'm not even sure I want to respond to such an inane arguement. So no one cares about stars anymore because the visually spetacular '300' does 200 million? So putting Hanks and Cruise in a role, any role, once taken by an unknown would have no effect on the boxoffice? You're an idiot and I'm forced to repeat myself. Obviously, there are a lot of variables to the commercial success of a pic but starpower is certainly one of them. Thats a ridiculous point to even argue...putting a Cruise or a Gibson into this film WOULD get it more attention but that's not even why I want big names in the pic - I want big names in the pic because I think the characters call for it...with the exception of the Nite Owl, these are all bigger than life characters..The Comedian, Ozy, Manhattan, Rorshach (perfectly cast)...you're a goddamn hypocrite anyway...no stars BUT Brad Pitt.....hurm.

I don't think every film needs big stars but I'm not gonna lie like everybody on here and say that A list talent has nothing to do with seeing a film. The stars I mention have proven track records...sure, they have failures here and there, but most of these guys work with the best directors and attach themselves to the best scripts...it's daft to think a film could be better by pulling people off the street...unless this film is being directed by DeSica...I expected a little more from the casting...I don't think I'm alone...

First off, thanks being good natured. You're taking a pretty undeserved beating and I apologise But I couldnt dissagree more. I can't help but agree with those that would feel "pulled out" of a Watchmen film as soon as Cruise or Pitt waltzed on camera. You must agree that Watchmen is NOT your typical comic adaptation. I believe some feel as strongly about this source material as some do about LotR. Watchman also is not a slam bang explosion fest (except for you know when), which is why I think the focal point should be exposition (sp?) and character. Again sorry for being a dick, I just disagree.

I interviewed Alan Moore a few weeks ago and broached the Watchmen film. I was starstruck, intimidated and nervous. It was prolly the worst interview Ive ever done. I've posted it if you'd care to check it out it's here: http://207.126.120.59/bio_marshall.shtml

what happened to "tom cruise is interested"? or "we've approached keanu reeves"? i'm not upset about the cast, though. i'm sure it will be great. JDM is pretty much the perfect choice for the comedian.

Big name stars bring too much baggage to roles like these..thats why X-Men worked so well with relative unknowns. You can't think of Wolverine now without thinking of Hugh Jackman, but 8 years ago it was who-tha-who??

"Whooaaa" visuals. Not too many outside of the comic book community knew of 300, and nobody knew what the fuck The Matrix was years ago. Put some heavy duty "damn, thats something I've never seen before" in the trailer and the curious will come.

Hey, HOLLYWOOD, you've already PROVEN that you CANNOT ADAPT Comic Books properly! What are you trying to do; TOP YOURSELVES?!?!?! I'm SO SICK of HOLLYWOOD IDIOTS who claim to be a "FAN" of a certain comic, or character, just before they proceed to screw around with it, (and usually strip it of everything that made it a great story in the first place!!!)
This "cast" proves that Mr. Snyder doesn't give a DAMN about WATCHMEN! What a JOKE!!!

I understand that I may be having a rash, kneee jerk reaction here, considering that I DID enjoy 300. I'm sorry, but, in light of HOLLYWOOD'S track record with comic book adaptations, and the mind boggling casting of "pretty boys" like Wilson as Night Owl (who, should be WAY OLDER!!!) and Morgan (DITTO!) What is this, "The TEEN WATCHMEN?" Where did they get these guys; a Calvin Klein add?
I have to question these casting choices, so, why should I trust that the script will be anywhere close to what it SHOULD BE?

I understand that I may be having a rash, kneee jerk reaction here, considering that I DID enjoy 300. I'm sorry, but, in light of HOLLYWOOD'S track record with comic book adaptations, and the mind boggling casting of "pretty boys" like Wilson as Night Owl (who, should be WAY OLDER!!!) and Morgan (DITTO!) What is this, "The TEEN WATCHMEN?" Where did they get these guys; a Calvin Klein add?
I have to question these casting choices, so, why should I trust that the script will be anywhere close to what it SHOULD BE?

it's all good, man, I'm never bothered by rants or colorful language as I can get just as heated...we're all passionate about films so at the end of the day, we at least have that passion to unite us if not the same ideas. And how damn boring would it be around here if we all had the same ideas anyway? I definitely see where your coming from...I just have never been distracted by A list talent like others claim...Now put f'ing Timberlake in there and I'd be crying distraction but talent like Gibson? Would just make me that much more excited about the project and would give me faith in the script. The whole star thing wasn't important to me as the age difference anyway...get me a character actor in the mid-40s and I'd be happy too...

not because of the questions, but because the interviewer's voice (yours?) was too enthusiastic and... i don't know... over the top? no offense dude, it's pretty sweet that you get to interview anyone, let alone alan moore. he himself sounds like a pretty nice guy. all the pictures i've seen of him make him look like he'll kill you in your sleep.

Actually, Watchmen is nothing like X-Men or JLA. No one has any real powers except for Dr. Manhattan and Ozymandias (sort of). And Mystery Men was a comedy, so it's nothing like it. If any comparisons are made, it'll be with The Incredibles, whose plot was based or was a tribute to Watchmen. OR the TV show Heroes since (without spoiling the movie) it basically ripped off one of the main plot points of Watchmen.

They should have waited to make this until makeup is developed properly with the ability to age people, instead of. Anyone who knows anything knows this technology is at least 30-40 years away down the road. Also, actors need to be able to act an age that's different from their own real age, but this can't happen until they repeal the Anti-Age-Acting Act which prevents this from legally occurring. How can anyone think this will work?!!?!&^8

Yeah, like I said I was very nervous, excited and just geeked way out, but I wanted to put it up warts and all. We've corresponded since and I believe Im gonna have a few more chances to calm down. Musicians don't phase me, but I just lost composure. Not to mention my partner told him he looked like Mick Fleetwood. /shootselfinhead

300 was a let down and in a year the majority of people will realized it sucked. I bet he's going to even have a rock anthem action scene in this one too. I just hope they keep the script a period piece or it's just another crappy comic to film mediasturbation.

Terrible terrible choices, how young are some of these guys, does any of them officially make it to the "B List", maybe Billy.
I know Alan Moore has distanced himself from this movie, but think its time we put him on suicide watch.

It's much easier to make a younger person look older than having an older person look young. With the exception of Haley, you see all of these guys in the flashbacks. Doctor Manhattan doesn't even age, so he has to look the same. Besides, if these guys are to look like they were fighting crime 10 years ago, then they have to be in believable shape. I was even against Haley at first, but I trust Snyder.

Of course, there will be plenty of mystery. It's a given that they'll give it a substantial rewrite! Let's face reality...there's absolutely *no* way that such a subtle, complex, and detailed story that spanned so many issues can be squeezed and compressed into a 2 hour film without a major rewrite.<p>It's not that I have low expectations for this one...I don't have *any*. Whoever posted the remark that it would be better as an HBO mini-series was absolutely correct.<p>Eh...who am I kidding? The bastards in the Hollywood business could really care less how they fuck up a great property...as long as the a-holes involved make their gazillions of dollars. [End of rant]

...the cast is too young, too unknown, too pretty. The director can't direct, the actors can't act. Too much CGI, not enough CGI. Guess what: I've heard the Best Boy has mob ties and the Key Grip has a crack problem. Maybe the seamstress will be colorblind. But the funniest thing in current talkbacks is the sudden love for Greengrass. Does anybody else remember all the whining about the "shaky-cam" technique when TBers found out Greengrass was attached? Jebus, people, step outside and take a deep breath. It's going to be okay....and even if it's NOT going to be okay....it'll be o-k-a-y.

Darksider, that makes no sense. Why would you want to make them look younger? The characters are supposed to older. Accept for Dr. Manhattan, they're all supposed to be has-been crime fighters in their middle age. Nite Owl, in particular, was not "fit" at all. He totally let himself go during his retirement years.